.

Case Law Alerts

Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that affirmative misrepresentation or fraudulent concealment of conduct that allegedly led to a patient’s death will toll statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims.

Reibenstein v. Barax, 2020 Pa. Super. 179, 236 A.3d 1162 (July 30, 2020)

January 11, 2021

by Gabor Ovari

The case involved a wrongful death and survival action brought by the decedent’s administratrix against the decedent’s primary care physician. The decedent died due to a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. Five days prior to her death, at the request of her primary care physician, she underwent a CT scan. The radiologist reported that the patient had an abdominal aortic aneurysm but it was poorly visualized. The report also stated that the primary care physician was contacted with the findings.

The trial court granted a motion for summary judgment based on the fact that the claim was filed beyond the two-year statute of limitations. However, on appeal, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed. The court explained that affirmative or fraudulent concealment of the cause of death will toll the statute of limitations as long as the misrepresentation about or fraudulent concealment of conduct led to the plaintiff’s death. Here the court noted that the patient died of an abdominal aortic aneurysm and the death certificate listed that condition as the cause of death. The court did not need to reach the actual claim that there was actual fraudulent concealment or affirmative misrepresentation.

Accordingly, pursuant to the court’s ruling, for purposes of considering a motion for summary judgement, it is essential to determine whether there are any allegations as to misrepresentation or concealment about the cause of plaintiff’s death. If so, it is very unlikely that a motion for summary judgment will be granted based on a statute of limitations argument.

 

Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2021 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2021 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.